AGCEEP Improvement

[Jester]

Here is a list of the areas that the AGCEEP will be working on in the near future:

1. Complete the merger of the PAI and Daywalker AI files.

2. Adjust relations for all nations in the game to coincide with the facts that same religionists are now normally at +125 instead of 0 relations.

3. Complete the Independence events.

4. Development of an AGCEEP mission statement/goals/philosophy.

5. Identification of the tag ID ranges allowable for monarchs and leaders.

Lets discuss and expand this list.

Late,
Jester

 

[unmerged(17856)]

regarding 1.; just a request to bear in mind the changes to ENG AI posted in the submissions thread.

 

[Cagliostro]

I really think there ought to be some sort of repair of the random events file. Some people want to get rid of it entirely, some people want to modify it to a large degree, and some people want only minor tweaks. But the issue keeps getting brought up over and over again, and nobody is addressing the real issues. If it's going to be kept in something like its current form, there should be some kind of careful review of the events one by one to see if they are generally considered acceptable.

 

[Toio]

Here is a list of the areas that the AGCEEP will be working on in the near future:

1. Complete the merger of the PAI and Daywalker AI files.

2. Adjust relations for all nations in the game to coincide with the facts that same religionists are now normally at +125 instead of 0 relations.

3. Complete the Independence events.

Lets discuss and expand this list.

Late,
Jester

If your #1 does not succeed, I suggest we starting writing new AIs.
Basically all monarch AIs to have small goals to achieve their destinations, instead of one huge AI for some Nations that does all.

 

[Norrefeldt]

I really think there ought to be some sort of repair of the random events file. Some people want to get rid of it entirely, some people want to modify it to a large degree, and some people want only minor tweaks. But the issue keeps getting brought up over and over again, and nobody is addressing the real issues. If it's going to be kept in something like its current form, there should be some kind of careful review of the events one by one to see if they are generally considered acceptable.

I second this.
With all respect to Jinnai I find it awkward that this one important part is a one-persons domain. I don't imply that it's being run in a bad way, just that it should be possible to submit to it just like everything else.
If we could make up some rules on how the random events should look, or what we want to achieve it would be helpful.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

*sigh* once again...you are all talking about the out-dated one jester is using for AGCEEP right now. Yes i totally agree that one needs to go.

I have sumbitted newer versions, but its been rejected by Jester last time because of some bugs which i fixed and this this time he's asked me to use the current one in AGCEEP as a base which is frankly nigh impossible for me to do (that much has changed).

If we could make up some rules on how the random events should look, or what we want to achieve it would be helpful.

I have a few:
1. Events that change manpower or taxvalue for provinces other than capitals should only fire for countries atleast size 4.
2. All events of a similar nature that have different triggers (FE higher centralization) will have the same affect, so you basically are just getting a better chance of having the event
3. Mean stability of events should be 0 - -1
4. Events should not fire if there is no reason if at all possible. Some are impossible, FE giving triggers for extra diplomats if you have 6 already is impossible.
5. RR should be no higher than 5, and that only for the most extreme events with more than 1 option. Also RR should never last for more than 60 months at most and only for the criteria mentioned afore.
6. Events should happen for their appropriate region. You should not be getting Stock Exchanges as Dai Vet.
7. Revolt events should not happen to countries less than 4 provicnes (RR i'll allow because it has other side-effects).

There are some others, but i'm just show you i am working under a set of rules.

Anyway, please do not judge my random events on the one in the current AGCEEP version as that one wasn't even modiified by me from the previous version.

 

[Jester]

*sigh* once again...you are all talking about the out-dated one jester is using for AGCEEP right now. Yes i totally agree that one needs to go.

I have sumbitted newer versions, but its been rejected by Jester last time because of some bugs which i fixed and this this time he's asked me to use the current one in AGCEEP as a base which is frankly nigh impossible for me to do (that much has changed).
I have a few:
1. Events that change manpower or taxvalue for provinces other than capitals should only fire for countries atleast size 4.
2. All events of a similar nature that have different triggers (FE higher centralization) will have the same affect, so you basically are just getting a better chance of having the event
3. Mean stability of events should be 0 - -1
4. Events should not fire if there is no reason if at all possible. Some are impossible, FE giving triggers for extra diplomats if you have 6 already is impossible.
5. RR should be no higher than 5, and that only for the most extreme events with more than 1 option. Also RR should never last for more than 60 months at most and only for the criteria mentioned afore.
6. Events should happen for their appropriate region. You should not be getting Stock Exchanges as Dai Vet.
7. Revolt events should not happen to countries less than 4 provicnes (RR i'll allow because it has other side-effects).

There are some others, but i'm just show you i am working under a set of rules.

Anyway, please do not judge my random events on the one in the current AGCEEP version as that one wasn't even modiified by me from the previous version.

This is true, Jinnai and I are kind of hashing out getting the newest version of the Random Events file into the next Patch, and I am confident it will be there. THEN we can pick it apart.

BTW, how did yu handle those anti-big country events in the file Jinnai ? Those were one of the things that I personally had a problem with.

LAte,
JEster

 

[Sikker]

I will, once again, suggest the removal of those anti-big-country random events. They are way too disruptive and destroys the enjoyment of the game.
I know that they are there to prevent WC, but right now they prevent Russia from doing anything but disintigrating. Please remove them - at least untill they have been thought through.

 

[Norrefeldt]

*sigh* once again...you are all talking about the out-dated one jester is using for AGCEEP right now. Yes i totally agree that one needs to go.

I have sumbitted newer versions, but its been rejected by Jester last time because of some bugs which i fixed and this this time he's asked me to use the current one in AGCEEP as a base which is frankly nigh impossible for me to do (that much has changed).
I have a few:
1. Events that change manpower or taxvalue for provinces other than capitals should only fire for countries atleast size 4.
2. All events of a similar nature that have different triggers (FE higher centralization) will have the same affect, so you basically are just getting a better chance of having the event
3. Mean stability of events should be 0 - -1
4. Events should not fire if there is no reason if at all possible. Some are impossible, FE giving triggers for extra diplomats if you have 6 already is impossible.
5. RR should be no higher than 5, and that only for the most extreme events with more than 1 option. Also RR should never last for more than 60 months at most and only for the criteria mentioned afore.
6. Events should happen for their appropriate region. You should not be getting Stock Exchanges as Dai Vet.
7. Revolt events should not happen to countries less than 4 provicnes (RR i'll allow because it has other side-effects).

There are some others, but i'm just show you i am working under a set of rules.

Anyway, please do not judge my random events on the one in the current AGCEEP version as that one wasn't even modiified by me from the previous version.

OK, sorry. But then it's being attended so I'm satisfied. The rules set makes good sense. Balanced options ought to be in there as wee. It ought to be a no-brainer though.

 

[Cagliostro]

*sigh* once again...you are all talking about the out-dated one jester is using for AGCEEP right now. Yes i totally agree that one needs to go.

If you'd read what Norrefeldt said, it's not that he objects to the random events themselves, it's more that in a "community" mod it's bizarre that something so incredibly important is completely a one-person job. If I want a change in the random events file, I pretty much have to convince Jinnai. If I can't convince Jinnai, well, I'll have to edit it in my own file, because there's no other way it's getting implemented. That's not the case with any other part of the game. I think it's a central issue and it doesn't get talked about because nobody wants to hurt your feelings.

Whereas I, being tactless and boorish, am willing to raise it.

 

[Jester]

If you'd read what Norrefeldt said, it's not that he objects to the random events themselves, it's more that in a "community" mod it's bizarre that something so incredibly important is completely a one-person job. If I want a change in the random events file, I pretty much have to convince Jinnai. If I can't convince Jinnai, well, I'll have to edit it in my own file, because there's no other way it's getting implemented. That's not the case with any other part of the game. I think it's a central issue and it doesn't get talked about because nobody wants to hurt your feelings.

Whereas I, being tactless and boorish, am willing to raise it.

I haven't really been paying attention to the random events thread, so am not sure if that particular area of the mod is being handled like that, but if that is the case then that is not the way this mod is meant to be handled. When I have looked at the random events thread, it didn't seem like there was much agreement in getting rid of those anti-big country events for example. I myself don't think they need to be gotten rid of, but they should proabably be made to only trigger with high BB or be non-AI events only so they don't hurt Russia and OE and such.

Late,
Jester

 

[Cagliostro]

I haven't really been paying attention to the random events thread, so am not sure if that particular area of the mod is being handled like that, but if that is the case then that is not the way this mod is meant to be handled. When I have looked at the random events thread, it didn't seem like there was much agreement in getting rid of those anti-big country events for example. I myself don't think they need to be gotten rid of, but they should proabably be made to only trigger with high BB or be non-AI events only so they don't hurt Russia and OE and such.

Late,
Jester

Read here. Start reading at Zander's lengthy comment about corrections. Read through to Norrefeldt's comment on the next page.

My objection isn't so much each individual change made, but that the changes made are pretty much entirely up to Jinnai. On the next page he mentions:

I've also redone the events again, a major overhall, although not as big as the previous major overhall. I would post them here but its too huge of a file to and would be too long to bother breaking it up into many posts. As well i can't upload it here nor do i have a site to upload text documents (yes its sad i can upload images, but not text files )

Basically the following has been changed:
All BB-releated events are human only and all "anti-WC" even if not BB related are human only.
All duplicate events for the sake of making them fire more often are do longer duplicated unless the trigger is different (fe higher centralization)
All events that have option to lower stability or else something else take something else negative now require -2 stablity (however it would lower it by -2 or more, it still requires at -2 as well because there will still be some kind of hit (in addition to 50% Revolt and RR hit)
Corrected it so switching action_a and action_b doesn't make any event fire more often for ai vs. human (NOTE: other things may make humans or ai get an event more often still)
Deleted 1 or 2 events and added 1 event
Enforcement of Jizya now can happen to Shiites as well (just incase shiite nations like persia take india)
changed many triggers that were "or X religions" to "not X religions" if approrite (FE unhappiness amongst the clergy)
Explorers and conquistadors can now happen to all non-pagans, however, you must now have appropriate sliders and tech levels. You cannot get both random explorers or conquistadors, only 1 or the other.
All religions get an equivalent of "Saint performs a mircale" though sunni, shiite, pagan, protestant and reformed are using a placeholder event "Cleric Performs a Miracle". I added this to counteract the "meteor sighted" which "saint performs a miracle" does.
Events will not fire if 1 choice will not do anything (ie max tech, sliders at max position, etc).
Duplicated events (ie one that can fire more often under certain conditions) now are all the same. They simply fire more often for nations meating the criteria and are not more severe (this is FE mostly with revolts)

I don't know if all of these changes are desired or not desired, but I'm not sure that they've received any discussion to speak of. I'd basically like to see more than one person who has oversight in this area and more than one person you can appeal to. As it stands extremely reasonable suggestions, like "don't give larger countries LARGER stability hits", have to be repeated over and over again before they're implemented. And that's just basic EU mechanics.

 

[GeneralSnoopy]

To add to your list:

(A) Development of an AGCEEP mission statement/goals/philosophy.
(B) Identification of the tag ID ranges allowable for monarchs and leaders.


'A' was the consensus that came out of the "AGCEEP: Historical Focus" thread. Namely, that two HC members would prepare a draft statement. 'B' should be done since it makes it immeasurably easier to add/subtract monarchs & leaders; I could find no such list.

 

[Yakman]

Why don't they anti WC events have more reasonable sizes? Like we add up all the historical Spanish or Russian [whichever was larger in terms of game provinces] and add say 20% more provinces and use that as the base? Then the events wouldn't kill the Russians or Spanish or even a hyper-aggressive France?

Is that reasonable?

 

[unmerged(2456)]

If you'd read what Norrefeldt said, it's not that he objects to the random events themselves, it's more that in a "community" mod it's bizarre that something so incredibly important is completely a one-person job. If I want a change in the random events file, I pretty much have to convince Jinnai. If I can't convince Jinnai, well, I'll have to edit it in my own file, because there's no other way it's getting implemented. That's not the case with any other part of the game. I think it's a central issue and it doesn't get talked about because nobody wants to hurt your feelings.

Well you should be happy that major insurgancy is now gone. 1.08 and espeially the betas takes care of this with civil wars. The other two events, Massive Religious Uprisings and its couterpart, Citiizen's Demand a Greater Role in governemnt i have not mostly because in the last beta Johan lowered the civil war chance signifigantly and these events have choices, unlike MI.

However all events now will only happen if you've reached BB-war level (except after 1800 as it climbs too fast for me to make multiple events for 20 years) or you've reached superpower level of 80 provinces, which now means 80 city provinces, not TP and colonies.

Why don't they anti WC events have more reasonable sizes? Like we add up all the historical Spanish or Russian [whichever was larger in terms of game provinces] and add say 20% more provinces and use that as the base? Then the events wouldn't kill the Russians or Spanish or even a hyper-aggressive France?

Is that reasonable?

They should now be close to that, unless Russia gets too ambitious too fast, ie hits the BB-war level that would happen in the most difficult level.

 

[unmerged(17856)]

Irish statelets

I recently played a game as ENG and merely 1 of them succumbed to SCO. The remainder stayed free.

Why is it ok that I played as ENG? Well, it's not totally OK, but the fact is is that it doesn't significantly matter if AI ENG conquers the Irish statelets. Especially considering the alternative approach to the Irish issue, which was to give all of Ireland to ENG at gamestart

So... so far so good.

 

[Jester]

Updated Improvement post.

Late,
Jester